About your Search

20121002
20121010
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
some were arguing about the actual numbers. jack welch made a lot of headlines with a tweet that said, unbelievable jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate so they change the numbers without any substantiation. he was on "hardball" with chris matthews and this is how he explained it. >> i've reviewed 14 businesses this week. from restaurants to widgets. i have seen everybody with a third quarter equal to or weaker than the first quarter. in order to get 873,000 new jobs, you would have to have a g.d.p. going at 4% to 5%. the second quarter was downgraded from 1.7% to 1.3%. the third quarter is not going to be very strong. it just defies the imagination to have a surge larger than any surge since 1983 a month before the election. i leave it to you to do all the analysis. >> one of the most important ceos in america. formerly of general electric. does this ring true? >> well, it rings true to me. since it's a survey, is this outside of the statistical bounds of their survey, which is plausible but irrelevant. but you have a president who says last budget got zero
the jobs number doesn't matter. is that in part this whole jack welch thing over the weekend around whether the numbers are real, does that matter in all of this? >> i think the jack welch stuff was crazy talk. and earlier in the year when you guys were down in washington on this, joe and i talked about it, there were between points that i would make. one, nobody messes or manipulates these numbers. but, took i think we exaggerate the importance of the numbers for this reason. the people who will vote on november the 6th know what they feel about the economy already. they're living it every day. so because there's a headline that says 7.8, it's a talking point, but they already know what their friends and neighbors are doing. >> when do we find out how romney is fun raising compared to that 180 million or whatever? >> i think if it was so par with obama's, we would have heard already. i think it's probably behind. >> you don't hear that that's unbecoming to have so much money to spend. just don't hear -- it's alway s the republicans. >> it's not decided by money. nice to have, but there is
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)